Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of heavy@ungoverned.org designates
 209.85.214.178 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <50F6AA34.2030503@ungoverned.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:25:08 -0500
From: "Richard S. Hall" <heavy@ungoverned.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: OSGi bundle repository missing information
References: <d0990530f2ebc31ceb9ec2603d818d64@nettrader.fr>
 <50F56727.60007@ungoverned.org> <50F571D8.3070601@nettrader.fr>
 <50F58146.4080805@ungoverned.org> <50F661AE.5060209@nettrader.fr>
In-Reply-To: <50F661AE.5060209@nettrader.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 1/16/13 03:15 , Nicolas F. wrote:
> On 15/01/2013 17:18, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> On 1/15/13 10:12 , Nicolas F. wrote:
>>>
>>>> It wouldn't hurt anything, but it wouldn't serve much purpose 
>>>> currently, would it? The main point of the OBR XML file is to 
>>>> provide sets of capabilities and requirements for resolving 
>>>> dependencies. It isn't a very good resource for generating general 
>>>> use documentation about bundles.
>>>>
>>>> -> richard
>>>
>>> We are developing a bundle in order to manage local bundles and OBR 
>>> bundles though an user interface. We will be pleased to let the user 
>>> see bundle icons if there is one. We do not want to use non-osgi 
>>> components in order to let the user create their own bundle 
>>> repositories using standard tools.
>>
>> Yeah, I understand and it isn't that it doesn't make any sense at 
>> all, but it seems such "end user readability" features could never 
>> end, which would ultimately be the wrong purpose for the repository XML.
>>
>> Regardless, I'm not against allowing it somehow, since I think it 
>> makes sense for OBR to just ignore stuff it doesn't understand, so 
>> you could just add it and OBR could just ignore it. Not sure if the 
>> current implementation is this flexible or not.
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>>
> The current implementation of OBR is flexible enough, but the maven 
> bundle plug-in has a limitation on resource when converting into XML :
> felix/maven-obr-plugin/.. ResourceImpl.java line 174
> ```java
> for (int i = 0; i < Resource.KEYS.length; i++) {
> ```
>
> The minimal resource are used, but if the map is used instead all 
> resource including Bundle-Icon should be exported in the OBR xml file.

In that case, I guess you should open a JIRA issue against Maven Bundle 
Plugin.

-> richard